TD alt

77.98 percent. We'll see how it goes.

I agree, but I've already said that the players will definitely take more money up front because it's more security. But they want more guaranteed money and NFL FOs don't want to do that for several and various reasons, and that's what's at issue. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-second-round-rookies-finally-starting-to-sign-what-took-so-long-and-what-it-means-for-future-contracts/ It's a tug of war between teams and players, and, sure, paying a player a signing bonus may satisfy them, especially if--and sometimes "only if"--it ultimately leads to a guarantee of more of their contract, but the teams are on the hook for all of those guarantees when cap time comes, so if they guarantee more money, they're ultimately losing the contract game.

Hell, my wife has picked up walking students on the way to school, uh-oh... I've given kids waters and Kleenexes, well damnit I'm a criminal.

That's basically what I said... If the guarantees are smaller, and/or the system is designed in such a way that balances the difference between rookies and vets, then the hit on the cap is mitigated. Yes, I realize that's what they were trying to do with the rookie wage scale, but obviously too many loopholes have evolved. It's time to modify the agreement (which probably won't happen), or we're just going to be in this position for the next half dozen years. I guess that I take a harder line. In my world, once you get drafted, you get drafted and play by the current rules. If you don't want to play by the rules then you'd just sit out until you do. You couldn't escape the situation by sitting out another year, you'd just have to play by the rules as they are, and not how you think that they should be. If gray areas arise, then the NFL and NFLPA would have to come to overarching solutions.

People only want to make a stink about it when it pertains to athletics. There are probably reasons for that, but that discussion is indeed a rabbit hole. I think that all students should be held to at least minimum standards academically so that they don't fall through the cracks, because most just aren't going to make it to (or even stay in) the pros. I've seen cases where kids are allowed to skate, slip and ultimately bust their heads because they thought that they were more "special" than they really were.

Not fully understanding. I don't get why there has to be no cap for my point to be valid. In a perfect world, they can have a cap and have guaranteed rookie contracts. The two aren't mutually exclusive. It's just a matter of finding the sweet spot that makes most satisfied.

Yep, like I said, I don't mind guaranteeing them money, but make the contracts smaller amounts in order to minimize cap implications. I don't know about "half," the actual amounts, whether more or less than half, would have to be determined by the NFL and NFLPA (which will probably be highly contentious, if not "impossible"). I'm just for whatever leads to the best product on the field while also unaffecting my wallet. As an aside, the NFL owners are greedy bastards in my estimation. They're trying to keep a larger portion of the pie, but players' agents are greedy as well, and they've sewn seeds of greed among the players. It's not all their fault; we all know what our society has evolved into, but the NFL wants a bigger piece of our smaller pocketbooks and refuses to "negotiate" with us (that's why we don't have cheaper and more reasonable à la carte options to view games that they're gradually trying to migrate to paid TV), so fu<k 'em. And then on top of that we have guys trying to water down the product even more by feeding greed. Change the way things are done so that we can at least see players prove themselves on the field without throwing wrenches into the engine that pays guys that have proven they can play on a pro level.

OK, I didn't realize this was about high school, but...if I'm spending my personal money trying to help some kids out, then no one is going to tell me how to spend my money. I get enough of the government spending my money--allocating my tax dollars--to children who don't really need anything, and now they're trying to tell me how to spend my personal money? Sure, there are many other issues to consider and rabbit holes that we could go down due to ethical concerns because it concerns kids, and the need for transparency is extremely important, but maybe as opposed to trying to stop kids from benefitting in darkness, we need to open up the blinds (and blinders) a little bit so that they can benefit in the light. I get where you're coming from, but this is a loaded and layered issue, and I'm just trying to give you some food for thought.

In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.

Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever. "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.

From what I gather, sure it allows you more room in that you can manipulate the cap more due to smaller prorated amounts to fit salaries in, but for cap purposes, you're still on the hook for the money at the end of the day. "ChatGPT You said: What are the advantages for NFL teams to sign larger signing bonuses? ChatGPT said: NFL teams often use large signing bonuses as a strategic tool in contracts. While they cost real cash up front, they offer several advantages, especially when it comes to salary cap management, player retention, and negotiation leverage. Here's a breakdown of the benefits: 1. Salary Cap Flexibility Signing bonuses are prorated over the life of the contract (up to 5 years) for salary cap purposes. This allows teams to spread out the cap hit, even if the player receives the money immediately. Example: A $20M signing bonus on a 4-year deal counts only $5M/year against the cap. 2. Attracting Top Talent Players love signing bonuses because they're guaranteed money paid up front. Offering a bigger signing bonus can sweeten the deal without inflating yearly salaries. 3. Front-Loading Real Cash, Not Cap Teams with strong cash flow can pay big bonuses now while minimizing the immediate cap hit. Useful for teams trying to build around rookie QB contracts or with flexible cash budgets. 4. Locking in Key Players Larger bonuses make it harder for a player to be released early due to dead cap consequences. This can create more job security for the player and roster continuity for the team. 5. Leverage in Restructures Big signing bonuses create future cap hits via proration. Teams can later restructure deals (e.g., convert salary to bonus) to create even more cap space. 6. Competitive Edge In free agency, a team offering more guaranteed cash up front often wins the bidding war, even if the total contract value is lower than another team's. Key Caveat: Large signing bonuses increase dead cap risk if the player is cut or traded early." I think that roster bonuses can be a useful tool if you're trying to keep players in by manipulating numbers and spreading the hit over time, but I don't think that it's something that you want to use unless it's "necessary." I don't know that you want to get into signing rookies on roster bonuses, as the bust rate is relatively high.

I'm not cap expert, but I asked Google if a larger signing bonus affect an NFL cap, and here is the answer: Yes, a larger signing bonus affects the NFL cap, but its impact is spread out. While the player receives the full bonus upfront, the team prorates it evenly over the life of the contract, up to a maximum of five years, for salary cap accounting purposes. This helps teams manage their cap space in the present by pushing some of the cap hit into future years. I said "larger," but any size bonus can be applied. A player gets their money up front indeed, but the team still has to pay for it over time.

You're still hamstringing the cap at the end of the day.

And that's the issue. I'm socially fairly liberal, but I'm also fairly fiscally conservative. I could see giving them guaranteed contracts at smaller amounts, but guaranteeing a multi-million dollar contract for someone that has around half a probability of being in the NFL for four years and hamstringing teams' finances is not necessarily something I'm cheerleading. Admittedly all of this is systemic and possibly even structural at present, but the NFL FOs and NFLPA is going to have to go to the grindstone and figure this stuff out. There is a possibility that there will be some "pain" that we, as fans, are going to have to endure because of it, but hopefully it will be better for us on the other side. I'm skeptical though. There is greed on all sides--agents, players, owners--but the preponderance of the greed is on the owners, and I as a fan am not into them taking more out of my pockets than they already are.

Frank, I feel like you do regarding this receiver thing at the end of the day. Yeah, investing in young receivers is the way to go in most situations. But, vets have their place. It just depends upon the team's individual situation and goals and the perceived value of the player and contract. It seems to me that at this point you're just going on about nothing in terms of Adam Thielen. It's neither that serious or important. In my opinion, our receiving corps can make good with him or without him. I don't think we'll be cutting any youngster with promise for AT if it comes down to that. But right now he's still a pretty decent value.

Sure, I agree with you to some extent. But a lot of us put our bodies and very lives on the line in necessary jobs (remember Covid). And I realize that opens up another real can of worms and questions that won't be answered here, but when the "failure" rate is somewhere around 50 percent, and the median length of a career for a second rounder is four years (per Google AI), is it really fair for them to make millions? Does it really make sense from a purely business perspective? I realize that the question is very much loaded, but at some point we must ponder these questions from all perspectives.

I really don't know how they should work this out. I can see all sides, and I really don't think there's a black and white here, the entire situation is too complex and all the teams are too intermingled. Regardless of how you think about these contracts, if the NFL does begin guaranteeing larger amounts of money then some type of way they're going to try and shake us--FANS--down for more money, and I ain't gonna pay it because they can't guarantee me good football.

Maybe he can be a Panthers' coach one day. Charlotte's not that bad of a city to live comparatively. Of course he has a home in Orlando as well, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him settle down in The Queen City.

No knock taken. Just explaining. I've seen so-called articles with Panther in the title, and that's the only Panther-related thing about the article. Seriously, indexing in order to mix and match names, as well as AI is getting out of hand. But, what are we gonna do? That's the world we live in.

I would assume there are lots of more stories out there (and indeed I saw some), but as I am a Panthers fan, first and foremost, Scourton was who I was researching.

I've really only begun to pay attention this week being that training camp is looming, so I was personally caught off guard by the fact that Nic Scourton remains unsigned. That's not necessarily bad news, but it's not necessarily good news either. Apparently it's a thing with this year's draft class. "Of the 32 players selected in the second-round, 30 remained unsigned and the clock is ticking. "Already we've seen one second-round pick hold out from the start of training camp with that player being Los Angeles Chargers' wide receiver Tre Harris. Harris did not report with the rest of the Chargers' rookies on Saturday due to his contract situation, a issue that could impact nearly every other team in the league. "For the Panthers, defensive end Nic Scourton is the player to watch for when rookies start showing back up to the team facilities next week. "The 51st overall pick is one of the 30 second-rounders who has yet to sign their rookie contract and the reason why is due to the other two that have actually signed. "Cleveland Browns' linebacker Carson Schwesinger and Houston Texans' wide receiver Jayden Higgins each signed fully guaranteed contracts as the first and second players drafted in the second-round. Prior to this year, second-round picks never received a fully guaranteed deal, only players selected in the first-round." https://atozsports.com/nfl/carolina-panthers-news/panthers-nic-scourton-contract-second-round-pick-training-camp-hold-out-tre-harris/ So, I suppose we'll see what's what pretty soon. It's definitely something to monitor.

In general, It's just unfortunate that he got hurt. But...I'd argue that all's well that ends well; the Panthers are in a better place in regards to the RB room, and, not only has CMC had the opportunity to almost win his team a championship in overtime of the Super Bowl, he's playing for a franchise known for solidity if not historical excellence.

It's your right to refer to it as vague, but it still flouts the theory of "zero evidence" that Tepper is changing. Here's another: "Carolina Panthers head coach Dave Canales and general manager Dan Morgan are reportedly being given a larger leadership role within the organization. Panthers owner David Tepper 'has taken a more hands-off approach of late,' according to ESPN's Jeremy Fowler. 'He's trying to trust Canales and GM Dan Morgan to get it right, knowing that the roster requires patience in its current state,' Fowler wrote. 'We shall see if he holds to that.'" https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10146782-report-panthers-david-tepper-has-taken-a-more-hands-off-approach-to-team ""David Tepper just wants to win and he's gonna supply everything that we need to win.. Things are changing around here and things are looking really positive" ~ Dan Morgan https://x.com/PatMcAfeeShow/status/1917639137550627107?t=6vgo8yXTO6eD0Gb55hyzNg&s=19 From about 2:15-6:35, Julian Council, Locked on Panthers, gives his take on whether Tepper seems to be changing (and specifically referenced the war room in his analysis): Dean Jones of Cat Crave on David Tepper in the war room. "He was an innocent bystander throughout a hugely important decision, placing full trust in Morgan and Tilis to make the right call." Jones also quoted Pat McAfee: "What I noticed though, at one point, they looked at (David) Tepper to get an answer, Tepper didn’t say sh*t. All anybody has said about Tepper is that he’s hands-on, hands-on, hands-on. Too handsy, too involved. He’s not letting the football people do their thing. We just watched in the biggest moment for their franchise, a top ten pick, he just sat there and let everybody do their jobs. I think if you’re a Panthers fan, you love everything you saw there." https://catcrave.com/silence-from-david-tepper-becomes-panthers-loudest-victory Granted, you're not getting a major headline here, but that's not going to happen anyway. Fowler isn't exactly a nobody, everybody knows McAfee, and you also have some locals that follow the team (including Dean Jones). Of course you have a right to believe that Tepper hasn't really changed, but to say there is no evidence that he just may be changing is not really true. It's just not. Hate the guy, but the way that he has handled this current regime is different than he handled previous teams, and his silence in the war room and publicly in general is different than years back.

I've seen the video, not a photo. Tepper basically wasn't saying a damned thing. Stop acting like owners of teams aren't in the war room.